# What is the best scheme for mapping/classifying political ideologies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 21, 2003, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455 "2003-06-21T19:22:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2003, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/1 "2003-06-21T19:22:36Z")
Everyone who thinks seriously about such things seems to agree that the old labels “right” and “left” do not convey enough information about political views. Where on the left-right spectrum do we place the Libertarians? Who’s further left, the Greens or the labor unions? But when we try to construct a more sophisticated “map” of political ideologies, agreement breaks down. It’s like we’re trying to map the landscape without prior agreement on a definition of “north” or “south.” Fortunately, we do have some solid information at least to begin with – information about 1. the political views of the (American) people and 2. the views of the “political nation,” a subset of the people – those who are politically active and/or interested. **1. Political views of the American people.** The following typology was developed by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. You can check it out at [http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=98](http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=98). The Pew researchers divide the American body politic into the following ten groups: > [@](#): > > STAUNCH CONSERVATIVES > > PAST TYPOLOGY COUNTERPART: Enterprisers > 10% OF ADULT POPULATION > 12% OF REGISTERED VOTERS > PARTY ID: 72% Republican; 24% Independent, Lean Republican > COMMENTS: As in 1994, this extremely partisan Republican group’s politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system and social values that reflect a conservative agenda. Dissatisfied with the state of the nation, Staunch Conservatives pay close attention to what is going on in politics and are highly vocal. > DEFINING VALUES: Pro-business, pro-military, pro-life, anti-gay and anti-social welfare with a strong faith in America. Anti-environmental. Self-defined patriot. Distrustful of government. Little concern for the poor. Unsupportive of the women’s movement. > WHO THEY ARE: Predominately white (95%), male (65%) and older. Married (70%). Extremely satisfied financially (47% make at least $50,000). Almost two-thirds (63%) are white Protestant. > MEDIA HABITS: Above-average news consumption: Staunch Conservatives listen to radio news shows and read a daily newspaper regularly more than any other group. > LIFESTYLE NOTES: Over four-in-ten (44%) trade stocks or bonds in the stock markets. Many (59%) go online. > POLITICAL ACTIVISM: Nine-in-ten (93%) follow public affairs most or some of the time. Highest voter registration and 90% say they vote always or nearly always. More than half (56%) have sent a letter to their congressional representative. > 1996 VOTE: 73% Dole, 6% Clinton, 6% Perot > ISSUE PRIORITIES: Morality and Taxes > > * * * > > MODERATE REPUBLICANS > > PAST TYPOLOGY COUNTERPART: Upbeats > 11% OF GENERAL POPULATION > 12% OF REGISTERED VOTERS > PARTY ID: 76% Republican; 22% Independent, Lean Republican > COMMENTS: Although loyal Republicans, these voters split with other GOP groups in their more positive views toward government and politicians, the environment and even Bill Clinton. These upbeat Moderate Republicans strongly believe America can solve its problems. They take conservative positions on social welfare issues, however. > DEFINING VALUES: Pro-business, pro-military, but also pro-government. Strong environmentalists. Highly religious. Self-defined patriots. Little compassion for poor. More satisfied than Staunch Conservatives with state of the union. > WHO THEY ARE: White, relatively well educated and very satisfied financially. Largest percent of Catholics across all groups. > MEDIA HABITS: Average media consumption. > LIFESTYLE NOTES: More than one-in-four (27%) are a parent of a child who plays in an organized sports league. Above average Internet use (58%). Just over two-thirds (68%) exercise regularly. > POLITICAL ACTIVISM: High attention to politics. Regular voters who are highly politically knowledgeable. > 1996 VOTE: 50% Dole, 19% Clinton, 8% Perot > ISSUE PRIORITIES: Social Security and Education > > * * * > > POPULIST REPUBLICANS > > PAST TYPOLOGY COUNTERPART: Moralists > 9% OF GENERAL POPULATION > 10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS > PARTY ID: 72% Republican; 25% Independent, Lean Republican > COMMENTS: Populist Republicans stand out for their strong religious faith and conservative views on many moral issues. They are less affluent than other GOP groups, however. Many of their social values are similar to other wings of the Republican Party, yet Populist Republicans tend to favor government efforts to help the needy. > DEFINING VALUES: Religious, xenophobic and pro-life. Negative attitudes toward gays and elected officials. Sympathetic toward the poor. Most think corporations have too much power and money. Tend to favor environmental protection. Almost two-thirds are dissatisfied with the state of the nation. > WHO THEY ARE: Heavily female (60%) and less educated. Fully 42% are white evangelical Protestants. > MEDIA HABITS: Average news consumption. > LIFESTYLE NOTES: Greater numbers than any other group attend Bible study or prayer group meetings. Many (58%) do charity work. Only 42% go online. > POLITICAL ACTIVISM: Average interest in politics and voter turnout, but relatively low political knowledge. > 1996 VOTE: 37% Dole, 21% Clinton, 14% Perot > ISSUE PRIORITIES: Morality and Social Security > > * * * > > NEW PROSPERITY INDEPENDENTS > > ## PAST TYPOLOGY COUNTERPART: None 10% OF GENERAL POPULATION 11% OF REGISTERED VOTERS PARTY ID: 69% Independent, 21% Republican, 5% Democrat COMMENTS: Affluent and less religious, this group is basically non-partisan with a slight lean toward the Republican Party. New Prosperity Independents are highly satisfied with the way things are going in the country. A majority approves of Bill Clinton, yet tends to be critical of government. One-third consider themselves Internet enthusiasts. Two-thirds favor having a third major political party in addition to the Democrats and Republicans. DEFINING VALUES: Pro-business, pro-environment and many are pro-choice. Sympathetic toward immigrants, but not as understanding toward black Americans and the poor. Somewhat critical of government. Tolerant on social issues. WHO THEY ARE: Well educated (38% have a college degree), affluent (almost one-fourth earn at least $75,000) and young (70% less than age 50). Slightly more men than women (55% to 45%, respectively). Less religious (only 13% go to church weekly). MEDIA HABITS: Above average news consumption. Some 59% read a daily newspaper regularly. More than 40% go online for news at least once a week. LIFESTYLE NOTES: More go online than any other group – 75%. Seven-in-ten (71%) exercise regularly. More than one-third (39%) trade stocks and bonds. Slightly more than half have a friend, colleague or family member who is gay. POLITICAL ACTIVISM: Politically knowledgeable, but average voter turnout. 1996 VOTE: 28% Clinton, 25% Dole, 16% Perot ISSUE PRIORITIES: Education and the Economy > > THE DISAFFECTEDS > > PAST TYPOLOGY COUNTERPART: Embittered/The Disaffecteds > 9% OF GENERAL POPULATION > 10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS > PARTY ID: 73% Independent, 8% Democrat, 6% Republican > COMMENTS: The Disaffecteds feel completely estranged from both parties. This financially pressured and pessimistic group is not only dissatisfied with the ability of politicians to help improve things, but also has less faith in America in general. > DEFINING VALUES: Distrustful of government, politicians, and business corporations. Favor third major political party. Also, anti-immigrant and intolerant of homosexuality. Very unsatisfied financially. > WHO THEY ARE: Less educated (only 8% have a college degree) and lower-income (73% make less than $50,000). More than one-quarter (28%) describe themselves as poor. Half are between the ages of 30-49. Second only to Partisan Poor in number of single moms. One-fifth (20%) work in manufacturing. > MEDIA HABITS: One-fifth (20%) regularly watch daytime talk shows like Jerry Springer. > LIFESTYLE NOTES: Highest incidence of smokers (41%) among all groups. > POLITICAL ACTIVISM: Low political knowledge. Among lowest voter turnout rates of all groups, second only to Bystanders. > 1996 VOTE: 33% Clinton, 16% Perot, 10% Dole > ISSUE PRIORITIES: Social Security and Health Care > > * * * > > LIBERAL DEMOCRATS > > PAST TYPOLOGY COUNTERPART: Seculars/60’s Democrats > 9% OF GENERAL POPULATION > 10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS > PARTY ID: 56% Democrat; 41% Independent, Lean Democrat > COMMENTS: Extremely tolerant on social issues. Champion individual rights and a range of liberal causes. Despite steadfast support for Democratic candidates, many Liberal Democrats prefer to call themselves Independents. Most favor having a third major party. > DEFINING VALUES: Pro-choice and support civil rights, gay rights, and the environment. Critical of big business. Very low expression of religious faith. Most sympathetic of any group to the poor, African-Americans and immigrants. Highly supportive of the women’s movement. > WHO THEY ARE: Most highly educated group (50% have a college degree). Least religious of all typology groups. One-third never married. > MEDIA HABITS: Average news consumption. More than 40% get news online. > LIFESTYLE NOTES: Few live in rural areas. Many attend theater, ballet, opera and do volunteer work for nonprofits. Most (60%) have a gay friend, colleague or family member. Above average Internet use. Almost three-in-four (73%) exercise regularly. > POLITICAL ACTIVISM: Most politically knowledgeable of all groups. Above average voter turnout. > 1996 VOTE: 70% Clinton, 4% Perot, 2% Dole > ISSUE PRIORITIES: Education and Health Care > > * * * > > SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS > > PAST TYPOLOGY COUNTERPART: New Dealers > 13% OF GENERAL POPULATION > 14% OF REGISTERED VOTERS > PARTY ID: 70% Democrat; 27% Independent, Lean Democrat > COMMENTS: This group differs from other Democratic-leaning groups with its conservative views on many social and political issues. Socially Conservative Democrats are less tolerant of immigrants and gays. Almost two-thirds think people should be willing to fight for the country whether it is right or wrong. Nearly three-fourths describe themselves as working class. > DEFINING VALUES: Pro-U.S., yet disenchanted with the government. Intolerant on social issues. Positive attitude toward military. Think big business has too much power and money. Highly religious. Not affluent but satisfied financially. > WHO THEY ARE: Slightly less educated, older group (27% are women over age 50). Labor union supporters. Higher than average number (62%) are married. > MEDIA HABITS: More watch nightly network news regularly than any other group. Almost six-in-ten (58%) read a daily newspaper regularly. > LIFESTYLE NOTES: Many follow pro-sports closely. > POLITICAL ACTIVISM: Most (80%) say they follow what’s going on in government and public affairs. Average voter turnout. Average political knowledge. > 1996 VOTE: 63% Clinton, 7% Perot, 6% Dole > ISSUE PRIORITIES: Social Security and Health Care > > * * * > > NEW DEMOCRATS > > ## PAST TYPOLOGY COUNTERPART: New Democrats 9% OF GENERAL POPULATION 10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS PARTY ID: 75% Democrat; 21% Independent, Lean Democrat COMMENTS: Strong faith in President Clinton’s platform on a range of social and political issues. They are the most satisfied of any group with the president and the state of the union. New Democrats also include the second largest group of African-Americans. DEFINING VALUES: Favorable view of government. Pro-business, yet think government regulation is necessary. Concerned about environmental issues and think government should take strong measures in this area. Accepting of gays. Somewhat less sympathetic toward the poor, black Americans and immigrants than Liberal Democrats. WHO THEY ARE: Many are reasonably well educated and fall into the middle-income bracket. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) are women and 21% are black. Numerous are self-described union supporters. MEDIA HABITS: More than average watch news magazines and cable news like CNN regularly. LIFESTYLE NOTES: Many (55%) volunteer for a charity or non-profit. POLITICAL ACTIVISM: Average political knowledge. Average voter turnout. 1996 VOTE: 71% Clinton, 3% Dole, 3% Perot ISSUE PRIORITIES: Social Security and Education > > PARTISAN POOR > > ## PAST TYPOLOGY COUNTERPART: Partisan Poor 9% OF GENERAL POPULATION 11% OF REGISTERED VOTERS PARTY ID: 85% Democrat; 12% Independent, Lean Democrat COMMENTS: Poorest of the ten groups, these voters are very religious, anti-business, and strong supporters of government efforts to help the needy. The Partisan Poor includes the largest group of African-Americans (39%). DEFINING VALUES: Xenophobic and anti-big business. Disenchanted with government. Think the government should do even more to help the poor. Very religious. Support civil rights and the women’s movement. WHO THEY ARE: Have very low incomes (40% make under $20,000), and two-thirds (66%) are female. Nearly four-in-ten are African-American and 14% are Hispanic. Not very well educated. Pro-labor union. Largest group of single mothers. MEDIA HABITS: One-in-four (23%) watch daytime talk shows like Jerry Springer. LIFESTYLE NOTES: Not yet plugged in. Only 32% are online – least out of all groups. Almost half (49%) attend Bible study or prayer group meetings. POLITICAL ACTIVISM: Average voter turnout. 1996 VOTE: 70% Clinton, 4% Perot, 3% Dole ISSUE PRIORITIES: Social Security and Poverty > > BYSTANDERS > > PAST TYPOLOGY COUNTERPART: Bystanders > 11% OF GENERAL POPULATION > 0% OF REGISTERED VOTERS > PARTY ID: 54% Independent, 25% Democrat, 10% Republican > COMMENTS: These Americans choose not to participate in politics, or are not eligible to do so (noncitizens). > DEFINING VALUES: Somewhat sympathetic toward poor. Uninterested in what goes on in politics. Rarely vote. > WHO THEY ARE: Young (49% under 30), less educated and not very religious. Work in manufacturing, construction and restaurant/retail industries. > MEDIA HABITS: Low rates of news consumption. Many watch daytime talk shows like Jerry Springer. > LIFESTYLE NOTES: One-third (33%) smoke cigarettes. > POLITICAL ACTIVISM: Are the least interested in politics and have the lowest political knowledge and vocalization. > 1996 VOTE: 90% didn’t vote. (the OP message is getting too long – I’ll have to break it in half) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2003, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/2 "2003-06-21T19:23:47Z")
**2. The "political nation."** The above typology is about the people – but even in a democracy, the people en masse don’t make policy, they react to the policy ideas and alternatives developed by a political aware and active minority. The way our “political nation” is divided up is rather different. This is merely my own set of impressions, not based on any scientific study, and I will welcom any improved model. In my view, the words “right” or “conservative” in American political discourse can refer to any of the following groupings: 1. Religious-social traditionalist convervatism – “family values,” the Christian Coalition, and all that. 2. Racist, anti-semitic, white-supremacist conservatism – a declining force but still very real, being rooted as it is in the native political traditions of the American South, and having achieved national expression in certain (actually, most) branches of the “citizens’ militia” and “common-law courts” movements. Despite superficial resemblance, NOT a form of fascism, or militarist-authoritarian-nationalist conservatism, like they have in Europe. The American Nazis do belong in this grouping but they’re a small minority of a minority. Most American white supremacists are also very supportive of “states’ rights” or local-communal autonomy, and very hostile to any kind of national dictatorship or even a strong federal government – presenting a real problem to any would-be American Hitler. In some ways this grouping shades over into libertarianism or anarchism, the law no longer being on their side as it once was. 3. Nativist, isolationist, anti-immigrant, populist conservatism – a more moderate form of the above. Best represented, at present, by Pat Buchanan and his America First Party. These people hate Wall Street as much as they hate the New World Order. Unlike the overt racists, they probably will not admit to hating Wall Street because there’s all those Jews in it. (Which doesn’t mean that isn’t on their minds.) 4. Foreign-policy neo-conservatism – an updated name for imperialism. Dedicated to the proposition that the United States should expand its military power and global influence by any means necessary. This is an important faction as it’s pretty much running the country right now, in tandem with the pro-business conservatives, below. 5. Pro-business conservatism – what’s good for General Motors is good for the country, etc. Corporate welfare, union-busting, all good. Military intervention abroad also good, so long as it helps business. 6. Libertarianism, or classical liberalism – pro-market, which is not the same thing as pro-business. Opposed to welfare for poor people; opposed, for the same ideological reasons, to government bailouts of troubled businesses; opposed to American military intervention abroad. 7. Respectable elitist conservatism – best exemplified by aristocratic intellectuals such as William Buckley. Combines elements of several of the above, as the occasion requires, while honoring the Old World Tory tradition of Edmund Burke. In fact, I’m going out on the limb classifying this group separately from the business conservatives – but, in principle, their tradition is much older. Obviously there’s a lot of overlap between these groupings and a given “conservative” might identify with several of them. But no rational person could identify with all of them. And for any given “conservative,” there’s probably one of the above groupings that represents his or her politics better than any of the others. On the “left” or “liberal” side we have: 1. Neoliberals – dedicated to the efficient integration of the “global economy.” Clinton’s grouping. 2. Left-liberals – dedicated to the conventionally “leftist” politics of the past 30 years, including “political correctness,” the upper-middle-class form of feminism, race-based affirmative action, and a moderate environmentalism. Led by an upper class that was described by David Brooks in his book _Bobos in Paradise._ 3. Labor leaders – still struggling to find political relevance although only a shrinking minority of the modern American labor force is unionized. 4. Socialists – of various branches and parties, still hanging around and waiting for the working class to finally get behind them, dammit! 5. Greens – centered on serious environmentalism; also emphasize “social justice” issues that go way beyond what the “left-liberals” want to talk about. 6. Multiculturalists – black and Latino racial separatist groups, Nation of Islam, La Raza, etc. Can anybody think of any major grouping to add to either of these lists? Be aware, even if these are in fact exhaustive lists of all the groupings now present in our “political nation,” they do not exhaust all **potential** groupings. **3. Conceptual models** Here’s where it really gets interesting. As I stated above, conceptual models or maps of political ideologies are so different from each other it’s sometimes hard to believe the authors are dealing with the same topic. To start with, there’s the Libertarian Party’s famous “World’s Smallest Political Quiz,” which you can link to at [http://www.lp.org/quiz/](http://www.lp.org/quiz/), and which will place you on a map with two axes: your attitude towards personal freedom, and your attitude towards economic freedom. This produces at diamond-shaped pattern with (predictably) Libertarians at the top. Then there’s Jerry Pournelle’s Political Axes, which you can link to at [http://baen.com/chapters/axes.htm](http://baen.com/chapters/axes.htm). Pournelle also chose two axes: (1) Attitude toward the State (useful tool or necessary evil?) and (2) Attitude toward Planned Social Progress (or, more broadly, rationalism-vs.-irrationalism). This allows him to produce a map which shows the difference between communists and fascists – both worship the State, but fascists are one the “irrational” side and communists on the “reason enthroned” side. Political journalist Michael Lind, in “Which Civilisation?” an article in _Prospect_ on October 25, 2001, classified modern political traditions as follows (you can link to the whole article at [http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=598](http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=598)): > [@](#): > > [T]he most important civilisational divide-one that seems even more important after the events of 11th September-may be the one between supernatural civilisations and secular civilisations. The divide is roughly, but not completely, correlated with the divide between pre-modern agrarian societies and industrial societies. Of the supernatural civilisations, the most significant have been the Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and the Indic (Hinduism and Buddhism). The two major Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam, conquered most of the world’s territory and people, including south Asia and the Americas. Only China and Japan, among the major non-western nations, escaped Muslim or Christian rule. Today Muslim theocracies like Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan and Saudi Arabia are the most extreme examples of societies based on supernatural religion. > > On the secular side of the civilisational divide, there have been three major traditions: humanism, rationalism and romanticism. These three traditions originated in Europe but now have adherents around the world. All three are essentially secular worldviews which do not need to invoke the authority of divine revelation or mystical gnosis (though some romantics are mystics or pantheists and some humanists have been religious believers). In respects other than their common secularism, the three traditions are fundamentally different from one another. > > Humanist civilisation crystallised in Renaissance Italy, before spreading to the Netherlands, Britain, and the US. This liberal, commercial, increasingly democratic civilisation has spread to other nations by emulation (Lafayette’s France, Atatork’s Turkey, Yeltsin’s Russia) and by conquest and conversion (post-1945 Germany and Japan). Humanists seek to ameliorate the problems of social life with the guidance of practical wisdom, derived chiefly from history, literature and custom, with little or no reference to supernatural religion or natural science, with the possible exception of the emergent sociobiology. Humanists tend to be modest as philosophers and cautious as reformers. Examples of great humanist thinkers and statesmen are Petrarch, Erasmus, Bacon, Montaigne, Voltaire, Franklin, Hume, Burke, Smith, Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison. > > Rationalism, a world view underlying a number of secular creeds, first crystallised in 17th and 18th-century France. Rationalists reject the humanist distinction between practical wisdom and natural science. The goal of rationalists of all kinds is to devise a science of society, modelled on natural science, which can serve as the basis for the construction of a “rational” social order. Stephen Toulmin makes a useful distinction between the “reasonableness” of Renaissance humanists and the “rationality” of Enlightenment philosophes. The rationalist pantheon includes social engineers like Condorcet, St Simon, Comte, Fourier, Bentham, Marx, Lenin and Ayn Rand. (The “secular humanists” who support world federalism and utopian social reform are really rationalists). > > Romanticism, the third major secular world view, has spread widely from its original homeland, late 18th and early 19th-century Germany. Romantics reject both reasonableness and rationality, they exalt the inspired unreason of the artistic genius, the child, the primitive uncorrupted by civilisation. Rousseau, Emerson, Wagner, Nietszche and Frantz Fanon should be on a list of romantic prophets, and idealist philosophers like Kant and Hegel arguably are closer to romanticism than to humanism or rationalism. > > The American revolution, and the French revolution in its constitutional phases, were humanist. The French terror and the Bolshevik terror were rationalist. The second world war was a struggle of three secular civilisations: humanism (Roosevelt and Churchill), rationalism (Stalin) and romanticism (Hitler). The war by Islamic radicals against the US, Europe and Israel is, among other things, a conflict between religious and humanist civilisation. > > My claim is that the civilisation shared by most Prospect readers is humanist, a relatively young global civilisation based on the post-medieval, Italian-Dutch-Anglo-American tradition of the constitutional, commercial society. Needless to say, this definition of humanist civilisation differs dramatically from conventional catechisms about the “rise of the west.” By this scheme, all modern American political ideologies are part of the same tradition of “humanism,” except for the most radical, including communists, fascists, and religious-traditionalist conservatives. Within that humanist tradition, of course, there is still a lot of room for disagreement. Note that Lind’s model puts Karl Marx in the same “rationalist” category as Ayn Rand! So, what do you all think? Can we come up with a better model than any of these – one that incorporates the facts of political demographics as well as purely conceptual notions about what “liberal” and “conservative” ought to mean? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2003, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/3 "2003-06-21T19:43:52Z")
Interesting categorizations, but they don’t seem to be doing a good job of mapping the results. There have been other threads on the idea that “left v. right doesn’t define political stances adequately.” One point often noted is [the Pournelle axes](http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm); a board search on that term may turn up some interesting discussions. ---
**Author:** ![Eolbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@Eolbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eolbo)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2003, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/4 "2003-06-21T20:19:18Z")
There is another mapping system here: [URL=http://www.politicalcompass.org/] It tracks individuals along two axes, one being economic and the other attitude towards authority/liberty so you end up in a quadrant rather then along a spectrum. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/5 "2003-06-27T18:23:51Z")
I looked up the “Political Compass” at [http://www.politicalcompass.org/](http://www.politicalcompass.org/), but it’s not really new – it’s just the same as the Libertarians’ political map, only rotated 125 degrees to the right, so the “Libertarian quadrant” winds up in the lower right-hand corner of a square rather than the top corner of a diamond. It does show one thing of interest, however. On the “International Chart,” showing where the most prominent world leader stand, the Libertarian quadrant is empty! Apparently there are **no** Libertarian leaders whose fame ranks with that of Silvio Berlusconi, Tony Blair or the Dalai Lama. To illustrate the nature of that quadrant in a demonstrative graph, they had to use an academic figure: Milton Friedman. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/6 "2003-06-27T20:42:03Z")
Where are the whigs? You folks ask for a new system and then sit around and just rehash the standard categories. “If one were to construct a demand-led political system, one would not configure it along the lines of perpetually-antagonistic power blocs. What we need is a system that efficiently reflects and manages publicly-agreed policy. If we are trying to ensure that health or educational services are provided most effectively, we do not care to know whether one’s colleagues are Conservative or Socialist or Liberal, any more than we care to know whether they are Catholic or Methodist or Anglican, or where they live. We care only that they agree on what the job is that needs doing and that they can do it.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/7 "2003-06-28T20:55:42Z")
Posted by **Dogface:** > [@](#): > > Where are the whigs? You folks ask for a new system and then sit around and just rehash the standard categories. > > “If one were to construct a demand-led political system, one would not configure it along the lines of perpetually-antagonistic power blocs. What we need is a system that efficiently reflects and manages publicly-agreed policy. If we are trying to ensure that health or educational services are provided most effectively, we do not care to know whether one’s colleagues are Conservative or Socialist or Liberal, any more than we care to know whether they are Catholic or Methodist or Anglican, or where they live. We care only that they agree on what the job is that needs doing and that they can do it.” Whigs? Never mind. The statement you are quoting might purport to be a viewpoint that transcends political ideologies, **Dogface,** but it isn’t; it is merely an expression of a point of view that is a political ideology in its own right: early-20th-century Progressivism. A more succint statement of the Progressive world-view is their famous slogan, “There is no Democratic or Republican way to pave a street.” Perhaps not, but there will always be a Democratic or Republican (or Green or Socialist or Libertarian or Populist) way to decide which streets will get paved and which won’t, and who gets taxed how much to pay for it. The Progressives were mostly upper- and upper-middle-class reformers with a Puritan view of politics and a distaste for the compromises of legislative logrolling. They had the most influence in the Northeast and Upper Midwest. They were very effective in municipal-level reform. It’s mostly thanks to the Progressives that most city and town governments are now in the hands of a “nonpartisan” council, and the patronage system has been replaced by civil service almost everywhere. Actually, there were three different “Progressive” parties in America in the 20th century (the following is from an encarta article, [http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/refarticle.aspx?refid=761558633](http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/refarticle.aspx?refid=761558633)): > [@](#): > > The first Progressive Party, known colloquially as the Bull Moose Party, was founded after a bitter fight for the Republican presidential nomination among the incumbent president William H > . Taft, the Wisconsin senator Robert M. La Follette (leader of the Republican Party’s progressive “insurgents”), and the former president Theodore Roosevelt. At the Republican convention in June 1912, most La Follette supporters switched to Roosevelt, but the nomination went to Taft. Roosevelt, incensed at Taft’s conservative bent, then formed the Progressive Party. Many liberal Republicans bolted to the new party, which in August 1912 nominated Roosevelt for president and the California governor Hiram W. Johnson for vice president. Condemning Taft as unduly responsive to big business, the Progressives advocated primary elections, prohibition of child labor, woman suffrage, national social insurance, and restrictions on the use of injunctions in labor disputes. Although the Progressives greatly outpolled the Republicans in the election, the net result was a victory for the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson. Most Progressives soon rejoined the Republican Party, and the Progressive Party died out in 1917. > > In 1924 a liberal coalition, frustrated by conservative domination of both major parties, formed the League for Progressive Political Action, popularly called the Progressive Party. Nominating Senator La Follette for president and Montana Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler for vice president, the party, which also drew support from the Socialists, advocated government ownership of public utilities and labor reforms such as the right to collective bargaining. Although he was overwhelmingly defeated by the Republican candidate, the incumbent president Calvin Coolidge, La Follette polled more than 4.8 million votes, about 16.5 percent of the total ballots cast, and 13 electoral votes. > > A third Progressive Party was formed in 1948 by dissident Democrats, most of whom had been prominent in developing the New Deal program of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. With the former vice president Henry A. Wallace and the former undersecretary of agriculture Rexford G. Tugwell among their leaders, the Progressives nominated Wallace for president and Idaho Democratic senator Glen H. Taylor for vice president. Charging that both major parties advocated policies that would lead to economic crisis at home and war with the USSR abroad, the party favored high-level international conferences to lessen tension with the USSR. At home they advocated full constitutional rights for all minority and political groups, federal curbs on monopolies, anti-inflation measures such as price and rent controls, and repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act. When the U.S. Communist Party supported the Progressives, the Democrats and Republicans attacked them as Communist-dominated. The Progressives maintained their right to support from any group backing them. Defeated by the Democrats under the incumbent president Harry S. Truman, the Progressives received more than 1 million popular votes, but after 1948 they no longer played a role in national politics. I can’t put my hands on it, but in 2000 or thereabouts Michael Lind wrote an article about the internal split in the Reform Party. his theory was that the conflict came about because the Reform Party was a coalition of two very different third-party political traditions: Progressivism, represented by John Anderson, and Populism, represented by Pat Buchanan. At present, the Populist wing is pretty well represented by Buchanan and his new America First Party ([http://www.americafirstparty.org/](http://www.americafirstparty.org/)). That leaves the Progressives to find an expression, somewhere . . . perhaps some of them will join the Greens. Or perhaps they’ll flock to Jesse Ventura’s new Independence Party ([http://www.mnip.org/](http://www.mnip.org/)), but that seems to have established no presence, as yet, outside Minnessota. And, of course, the original Reform Party ([http://www.reformparty.org/](http://www.reformparty.org/)) still maintains at least a nominal existence, and there is also a splinter group called the American Reform Party ([http://www.americanreform.org/](http://www.americanreform.org/)), which broke away from the Reform Party in 1997. Who knows, maybe we’ll be hearing from the Progressives again. You can read about, and link to, these and many other American third-party organizations at the Politics1 website, [http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm](http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm). Any complete map or model of political views in America should have fairly obvious places to pigeonhole both the Progressives and the Populists. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/8 "2003-06-28T21:32:59Z")
As a theoretical model, might I suggest multple axes resulting in something like the Briggs-Myers personality test [http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html](http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html) So you might have the “govt interference in economy” axis, the “govt control of public morals” axis, and so on, so you can say the “I’m a SFTR (or some such), and I support politican X because he shares three of those.” Of course, this would imply that people’s politics are more like personalities rather than logically-derived principles… then again, I think that’s probably true anyway. Steven Den Beste’s article suggests some possible candidates: [http://denbeste.nu/cd\_log\_entries/2003/05/LeftandRight.shtml](http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/LeftandRight.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2003, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/9 "2003-06-28T23:34:36Z")
I should have mentioned in my last post: Nowadays the word “progressive” is more often used to mean something entirely different, the equivalent of “left-liberal.” E.g., Congressman Bernie Sanders’ leftist party in Vermont is called the Vermont Progressive Party ([http://www.progressiveparty.org/](http://www.progressiveparty.org/)). There is some justice to this, I suppose, as one of the old Progressives’ planks, the one from which they took their name, was commitment to a progressive, redistributive income tax, which modern left-liberals also favor. Apart from that, I think the leftists just grabbed onto the word because nobody else happened to be using it, and it sounds cool and optimistic and expresses their commitment to social “progress.” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/10 "2003-06-29T01:59:04Z")
I quite like the libertarian two-axis system (with axes adjusted according to taste, naturally). Simple, elegant, and quite effective given the rather narrow standard deviation in pure political views. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/11 "2003-06-29T04:55:35Z")
The problem I have with all the two-axes charts I’ve seen, including both Jerry Pournelle’s and the Libertarians’, is that there’s no place to express differences of opinion outside of domestic social or economic policy. Specifically, there’s no place to show how one feels about foreign policy. In my own case, I’m somewhat liberal on domestic social policy but quite conservative on foreign policy. I wonder where that puts me? Ed ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2003, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/12 "2003-06-29T23:31:22Z")
Well, there’s an obvious problem there, **suranyi.** Two axes are the most you can have on a two-dimensional chart or map. There might be several other relevant axes but it would take a cubic or hypercubic display to properly map all of them. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/13 "2003-06-30T04:56:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Brian wrote: > the OP message is getting too long – I’ll have to break it in half Perhaps that is telling you something.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/14 "2003-06-30T07:08:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrainGlutton \* > \*\*Well, there’s an obvious problem there, **suranyi.** Two axes are the most you can have on a two-dimensional chart or map. There might be several other relevant axes but it would take a cubic or hypercubic display to properly map all of them. \*\* That is precisely my point. Any two-dimensional chart must be too simple to reflect the real-world variance of political opinion. Ed ---
**Author:** ![cowgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cowgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cowgirl)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/15 "2003-06-30T14:03:40Z")
Just wanted to pop in to grind my usual axe and point out that to talk of the “green” party is disingenuous: “environmentalists” will never agree with each other, ever. You can have environmentalists all along the present left-right continuum, and will have them at any point along any map you choose to draw. So-called “green” values do not “naturally” correspond to any other values. This illustrates why any attempt to map political ideologies will be inadequate. For example, look at the following people: - The rich man who doesn’t want the lovely old trees outside of his country home destroyed - The immigrant family who doesn’t want to live beside a hazardous waste dump - The aging hippies who want to keep the killer whales and old-growth rain forests alive for future generations - The working-class person who wants the local wetland preserved so s/he can continue hunting ducks - The college student who avoids purchasing products from companies that cause environmental damage overseas - The Inuit woman whose breast milk contains toxic levels of PCPs - The middle-class urban family who is sick and tired of smog and wants to stop financially supporting dirty energy sources (eg coal-fired power plants) From this, what can you conclude about their opinions towards fiscal or social policy, or labour unions, or what newspaper they read? My hypothesis is that the answer is “Nothing.” Therefore any system which tries to group people together on the basis of their “opinions” will always be inadequate. Note that environmental issues are the ones I know most about: I’m sure that there are other types of issues that transcend political alliegances as well. ---
**Author:** ![Zeldar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b77776/32.png) [@Zeldar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeldar)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/16 "2003-06-30T14:16:58Z")
Maybe something like the color wheel? 3D alteration of the 2-axis model. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2003, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/17 "2003-06-30T18:28:21Z")
Posted by **cowgirl:** > [@](#): > > [t]o talk of the “green” party is disingenuous: “environmentalists” will never agree with each other, ever. Perhaps not, **cowgirl,** but there is an **organization** calling itself “The Green Party,” whose members share enough views about ecology and other matters that they can work together for common goals. Actually there are two such organizations: The Green Party of the United States ([http://www.gp.org/](http://www.gp.org/)), which ran Ralph Nader for president in 2000; and the Greens/Green Party USA ([http://www.greenparty.org/](http://www.greenparty.org/)), which has been described as “the older, smaller and more stridently leftist of the two Green parties.” You can check out these and more at the Politics1 website, [http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm](http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm). Which perhaps goes to reinforce your point – environmentalists are internally divided – but it does not detract from mine: Environmentalists constitute a very real voting bloc, whenever the issue at hand is relevant to the environment; and the majority of them share a certain world-view, to an extent, with the result that they also form a voting bloc with respect to “social justice” issues that are not directly related to ecology. You know, perhaps we shouldn’t assume that the best scheme for graphically representing the range of political views in the United States should be a map, with axes. Perhaps it should just be some kind of chart with rows and columns. That frees us from having to try to fit every viewpoint into a two-value description. Does anyone have any ideas? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/18 "2004-01-30T05:10:13Z")
I decided to revive this thread because, in this week’s (1/19/04) issue of _In These Times,_ I came across a “New Political Compass” devised by one Paul H. Ray, Ph.D. – not sure who he is, except that he’s a “social researcher” and co-chair of an organization called the Forum for a Wise Civilization in San Francisco, and his politics are obviously left-progressive. By his analysis, the biggest, baddest new political grouping is the “New Progressives,” which are not the same as the “Liberal Left” even though they share many of the same views. The other groupings are the “Social Conservatives” and “Business Conservatives.” Ray places them on a compass-like diagram: Business Conservatives (14% of the electorate) at the bottom; Liberal Left (12%) on the (of course) left; Social Conservatives (19%) on the right; New Progressives (36%) at the top; and the “Alienated” (20%) at the center. Check it out: [http://www.culturalcreatives.org/Library/docs/NewPoliticalCompassV73.pdf](http://www.culturalcreatives.org/Library/docs/NewPoliticalCompassV73.pdf) [http://coloradonlp.org/newpoliticalcompass.asp](http://coloradonlp.org/newpoliticalcompass.asp) [http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=510\_0\_1\_0\_M](http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=510_0_1_0_M) What do you think? Profound new insight or New Age-y wishful thinking? ---
**Author:** ![rose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/91b2a8/32.png) [@rose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rose)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2004, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-best-scheme-for-mapping-classifying-political-ideologies/183455/19 "2004-01-30T05:39:06Z")
i always have been trying to find some simple model of the ranges of political thought… i’m in college now and am taking a class where i’m finally getting this clarified… this will be a very simplistic chart; it concerns only order, equality, and freedom. But the very broadness of those three ideas makes the chart very far-reaching in the attitudes it is able to classify… though i can see how it might be difficult to determine how international issues fit in. But anyway, here goes… first, to define order-- equality and freedom can stand on their own-- but order in this illustration will signify mostly social order, such as marriage=man+woman, abortion goes against inherent aversion to murder, nationalism is good, etc. as for the graph itself… On the x-axis is order, and on the y-axis is equality. Total freedom-- anarchy, i guess-- would go at point of origin. Conservatives value order, and not so much equality, so they’re at the bottom right quarter of the graph, if we’re dividing this into quarters. Liberals value equality, not so much order, so they get the upper left square. Communitarians got the upper right square… lots of order, along with lots of equality. And libertarians obviously, valuing freedom more than both order and equality, get the lower left. That may be a little elementary, but i hope it helps. I liked the idea of establishing both order and freedom in opposition to freedom.